Jammu and Kashmir Court February 1983 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Angrez Singh and ors. Vs. Dina Nath and anr.
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-28-1983
Reported in: AIR1983J& K88
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. This order will dispose of an application filed by one of the defendants, namely, Shri Dina Nath with the prayer that the suit be dismissed as having abated.2. Plaintiffs Angrez Singh and four others filed a suit under Section 92, C. P. C, for the removal of the defendants from trusteeship of Shri Vinaik Misser Dharamshalla, (hereinafter called the 'Trust') and for rendition of accounts by the trustees. The plaintiffs also prayed for the appointment of some other trustworthy persons as trustees in place of the defendants to manage the properties of the said trust. The defendants, Dina Nath and Nishi Kant were the two trustees.3. According to Dina Nath defendant, Shri Angrez Singh plaintiff 1 died on 21-12-1978, while Shri Nishi Kant defendant 2 died on 25-9-1980 and since no legal representatives had been brought on record for either Angrez Singh plaintiff or Nishi Kant defendant (deceased), the suit has abated, Mr. J. L. Sehgal, learned counsel for defendant Dina...
HussaIn Alam Vs. the State
Court: Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on: Feb-08-1983
Reported in: 1983CriLJ1481
Mufti Baha-ud-din Farooqi, Ag. C.J.1. The preliminary point arising for determination in this case is: Whether an appeal would lie against a conviction simpliciter, though no sentence has been passed? The events leading up to this question are these: The appellant was tried in the court of Sessions Judge, Rajour on a charge of kidnapping under Section 366, R. P.C. On consideration of the evidence, the court found the charge proved against him and convicted him accordingly. The court then deferred the case for hearing as regards the quantum of sentence as required under the amended Cr. P.C. But before such hearing could take place, the accused has come up in appeal against the order of conviction. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the appeal as against conviction on a trial held by the Sessions Judge would be competent even though no sentence has been passed in the case. For this he relied upon Section 410 of the Cr. P.C. and the decisions in Shankar Sukul v....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›